Multi-Track Recording?

[hbarcat]

Our band multi track recording process uses 3 vocal, 2 guitar, 1 bass, and 7 drum mic channels. We at times add a stereo keyboard channel. The drum mics are snare, kick, 3 Tom’s, and 2 overheads. Just providing this information for reference as it’s important to have enough recording tracks available for current and future use.

That's a standard way to mic your band and it's pretty much foolproof, although you'll need to have as much as 16 simultaneous channels available. I've done this before by linking two Zoom R16s together.

For recording band practice and for most bar gigs, I'll make do with 8 tracks.

- vocal mic 1
- vocal mic 2
- guitar
- guitar 2 or keys
- bass
- kick drum
- snare drum
- drum overhead

If I want drums in stereo, then I need to free up another channel and have two overhead drum mics separated as a stereo pair. I can do that if I don't need a second vocal mic or by not miking the snare drum.

I've been in a couple of three piece bands, which makes it much easier to record everybody with only 8 tracks.

 

[hbarcat]

Our band has a Zoom R20 for this use case. It has 8 inputs with 16 tracks. Each track is saved as a separate WAV file on the SD card, so it’s easily pulled into a DAW and mixed there. The preamps are clean/transparent so they have no baked in sound that gets in the way of plugins. I think there’s something- sample rate at 44.1khz I think- that’s not as high as some would like, but it’s good enough for what we do with it.

Yeah, the Zoom R20 is limited to 44.1kHz, which is the same as standard CD format, although the bit rate is higher (24 bit compared to 16 bit).

For most "working hobbyist" bands recording their practices or bar gigs, that's going to be just fine.

 

[40Hz]

I'm also using Mixbus occasionally, it's an awesome daw. For everyday use we're using Cubase tough. It's a great all around daw.

I used Cubase for many years going back to the days when you ran it on an Atari ST and it was basically just a MIDI sequencer. But it has come a long way since then. And IMO it’s still one of the finest DAWS out there. And its Drum Editor is one of its best features. If you do a lot of serious drum track editing you’ll definitely want Cubase.

I mostly use Mixbus for final mixing. I cut my recording teeth on one of those old studio consoles. And Mixbus looks and works just like one of those big and astronomically expensive boards. So it was virtually a zero learning curve for me. But even so, I find myself using Reaper more often than not to get raw tracks down these days. It’s great for that. Does a lot more too once you really get into it. But I just use it for basic recording tasks.

 

[Tosh]

To Tosh:

These are great questions and it's helping me learn what I might need. And in the short time today that I've been following some of the suggestions here (thanks to EVERYONE!) I'm seeing already that I MIGHT benefit by simply upgrading to a 16 channel digital mixer--capable of recording individual tracks. Currently we have four (sometimes 5) vocals going, two different guitarists, two keyboards (one player), bass (me!) and drums. So, in a perfect world, five vocal mics, 5 instruments and drums (which I would think at a minimum would need at least 2 mics). So right there is 12. So, I'm actually thinking 16 (if multiples of 4 is the standard), just for a little wiggle room.

I imagined downloading to my computer and using SD cards for starters.

And yes, this may be more than I was thinking--but I really wasn't sure WHAT to think when I started. And...Christmas is coming up here...

If you're thinking a new mixer is in line with your needs/wants, that's cool. I'm going to cast a vote for the Zoom Livetrack L-20. Lots of bang for the buck. I like the built-in headphone distribution mixer. Though you might not consider that to be valuable right now, when the time comes that you want to do overdubbing, you will!

 

[higain617]

Our band multi track recording process uses 3 vocal, 2 guitar, 1 bass, and 7 drum mic channels. We at times add a stereo keyboard channel. The drum mics are snare, kick, 3 Tom’s, and 2 overheads. Just providing this information for reference as it’s important to have enough recording tracks available for current and future use.

I think you will need something with like 16-channels. I think PreSonus make them for under a grand.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Here is some additional thoughts and I’ve had a xr18 and soundcraft UI in addition to many different analog mixers. I also have a pretty fancy hybrid home studio.

If you are running sound and playing in the band at the same time you have to balance two very important things. An analog console of digital with physical controls is WAY easier to adjust while you are playing. Look over locate the knob and wait for that rest that allows you to adjust it.

that is simply not something that is easy even if you connect a wireless mouse to your lap top if you are doing it in the box. I have hundreds of gigs of experience doing both.

now a digital box like the XR18 gives you a huge advantage in saving presets and scenes that allow you to pregame the setup. Tweak it from the prior performance etc. that helps you get set up quicker and deliver a better sound.

now if this group can do set and forget and plays with good stage dynamics the box will work well. If you have a singer that wants changes to a monitor mix mid song or guys generally like to ask for stuff a lot. The tactile ability of an analog mixer will work better.

I’ve been eyeing a Tascam for a long time and if you can live with two monitor mixes and no group sends. It’s really a great option.

 

[Boundary Effect]

I bought a Presonus AR16USB four years ago. It's an analog mixer with 12 mic channels, the last four also function as stereo line input channels. Most analog mixers with USB only function as a 2x2 or 4x4 audio interface. The StudioLive AR16 is 18x4. So every input can be recorded to it's own track on a DAW. Presonus has a simple program for capturing audio. Using an old MacMini (I bought in 2011 for my daughters' to use for high school homework) worked great for capturing rehearsals in 14 or 16 tracks.

 

[Alnitak]

OK! I want to say THANK YOU to each of you for your contributions. Collectively, you've given me a ton to research, think about and figure out what would actually be best moving forward. And that's what I was hoping for. If you are interested...my intuition tells me that I might be wiser to upgrade from my Yamaha MG16XU mixer and purchase a digital one which is capable of simultaneous live sound mixing and recording, and much more--as opposed to pursuing a recording solution alone. So that narrowed things down.

I played around with the SoundCraft Ui24 software--and really liked the idea of being able to make precision adjustments to the frequencies and 'q' for different channels--and being able to save "shows" (or series of snapshots) for individual songs, or sets, etc.--something that simply is not possible with what I have now. I also like the option of each player being able to control their own monitor mix from their own personal device. I also liked the fact that it has a small stage footprint--compared to the Yamaha. Similarly, being able to walk out and listen to the mix and just mix myself from an iPad (without having to use hand gestures to a band mate!) would be terrific. I have a wireless system for my bass so I could even adjust my own from wherever in the room I'm standing. (All this said, I DO understand I'm leaping from analog to digital and now I'll need to navigate menus to fix things--as opposed to twisting knobs--so, much learning will accompany this).

So, as of this morning, I'm leaning towards the SoundCraft Ui24 (which will leave me plenty of room for growth/experimentation). I realize my original intent was simply to get a multi-track recorder--and it has grown to the consideration of a digital mixer/recorder. But as I looked at what I had in mind, what the prices were of standalone interfaces to use with what I currently have, it seemed like if I spent just a bit more, I could get myself into a relatively professional setup--as far as a quality multitrack recording (and as a side benefit, mixing) go.

So, if this is the level of product I am interested in, my UPDATED QUESTION is: Should I be looking at something else (around $1000)--and if so, can you be very specific--comparable to the SC Ui24? A friend of mine has a Behringer digital mixer--and several folks here have suggested that brand--and they do seem to be less expensive. If you have experience with both, is one more reliable than the other? Is customer service a factor? Is there something else I should be considering? Allen & Heath CQ20B? Zoom LiveTrak L20R? Those were other suggestions...but looking especially for input from those who have used both (if possible). Thanks!

 

[peterpalmieri]

I have owned both a ui16 and an XR18. The XR18 is feature packed and when you learn the app it is nice. I found the UI mixer a lot simpler to navigate in a live situation, no app needed. It is simple enough that I donated it to my church as the PA system and to feed a live stream and some none music tech people don’t seem to have an issue using it.

on the other hand I’ve played 3 different venues this year that had a house PA with a Behringer/Midas system. Two of which told the band to bring monitors and handed us an iPad. Thankfully I’ve used it and was comfortable. That also tells me it’s reliable and becoming standard.

I’m still rooting for the Tascam

 

[Tosh]

my tuppence -

I don't like touch screen interfaces. I've had connectivity issues with taking my WiFi to a venue before. I've seen tablets broken at a gig. I would choose the "hardware" mixer with knobs and sliders and switches (oh my!)

 

[DirkP]

I have owned both a ui16 and an XR18. The XR18 is feature packed and when you learn the app it is nice. I found the UI mixer a lot simpler to navigate in a live situation, no app needed. It is simple enough that I donated it to my church as the PA system and to feed a live stream and some none music tech people don’t seem to have an issue using it.

on the other hand I’ve played 3 different venues this year that had a house PA with a Behringer/Midas system. Two of which told the band to bring monitors and handed us an iPad. Thankfully I’ve used it and was comfortable. That also tells me it’s reliable and becoming standard.

I’m still rooting for the Tascam

The Tascam Model mixers are really great, esp. the M12 that is fully digital and has Midi. One of my best buys, using it every day for practice, recording and gigs. My SSL SiX collects dust. Only advantage of the Zooms: the 4 headphone outputs with individual mixes. This is great for some situations. The M12 only has two.

 

[Alnitak]

OK! So again THANK YOU to all. To follow up on all the above posts...I just purchased a SoundCraft Ui24. As is obvious, everyone has their own opinion--and in time, I'll have mine. But I'm going to give this one a shot--and from all I've read here and researched elsewhere, this appears to be a solid product. Super excited!

Now, almost every single iPad/iPhone controlled digital mixer I've read about has had frustrated users regarding Wi-Fi drops from inadequate internal routers. And this specific digital mixer/recorder is no exception. Most appear to function fine on Wi-Fi at home/rehearsal spaces, but in crowded event locations, with many users, and multiple additional house Wi-Fi access points nearby, they all seem to have issues of one sort or another (simply Wi-Fi dropping is the most common). And obviously none of us want that--especially me. As I understand it, my goal will be to disable any Hotspot and Wi-Fi capability on the Ui24--and use a separate router to create local area network (LAN).

NOT to discourage anyone (because I WILL appreciate any suggestions and words of wisdom from any users in my situation)...but I am especially looking for those who may have actual experience (i.e. IT/Networks/Wi-Fi, LAN, etc.) managing these specific types of things--these routing issues with digital mixers in crowded venues. Ultimately, I'm looking for help finding...a recommendation for the simplest (yet overly adequate) router to purchase so I can feel CONFIDENT that I'm not going to be dealing with drops in crowded venues.

For CONTEXT (if these things matter)...

a) We don't have a sound person. I will be doing this and playing.

b) We don't play on stages that are large--probably 30' across at most--however, using an iPad, I could easily get 100 or more feet away from the stage during "d" (below)

c) I will be letting band members use their own (i.e. up to 5 different) iPhones for personal mixing, and

d) Simultaneously doing all the other things which need to be done to the sound system/mix at an event.

So my UPDATED QUESTION is....I AM LOOKING FOR A ROUTER recommendation such that I can be confident in my system (i.e. have a stable/no drops) solution with the SC Ui24 digital mixer. For now, (I'm out of my league here)...maybe just "any old router" will do--and it's less about the router and more about the LAN option instead? Opinions I've heard are "Use 5G", "Get the most powerful transmitter--to get the greatest range"). But there are so many different routers to choose from. I really don't want to spend more than $150 for this--but will if absolutely necessary.

If you need additional information from me to be able to make a specific recommendation for sure...let me know and I will get back to you. [My question AFTER this one is likely to be related to assigning specific IP addresses, subnets, and getting things smooth for a local area network. Of course, that's IF I'm understanding things to this point. I'm doing my homework on how routing works now--so I should be more informed as we go.]

Thanks in advance!

 

[DJ Bebop]

OK! So again THANK YOU to all. To follow up on all the above posts...I just purchased a SoundCraft Ui24. As is obvious, everyone has their own opinion--and in time, I'll have mine. But I'm going to give this one a shot--and from all I've read here and researched elsewhere, this appears to be a solid product. Super excited!

Now, almost every single iPad/iPhone controlled digital mixer I've read about has had frustrated users regarding Wi-Fi drops from inadequate internal routers. And this specific digital mixer/recorder is no exception. Most appear to function fine on Wi-Fi at home/rehearsal spaces, but in crowded event locations, with many users, and multiple additional house Wi-Fi access points nearby, they all seem to have issues of one sort or another (simply Wi-Fi dropping is the most common). And obviously none of us want that--especially me. As I understand it, my goal will be to disable any Hotspot and Wi-Fi capability on the Ui24--and use a separate router to create local area network (LAN).

NOT to discourage anyone (because I WILL appreciate any suggestions and words of wisdom from any users in my situation)...but I am especially looking for those who may have actual experience (i.e. IT/Networks/Wi-Fi, LAN, etc.) managing these specific types of things--these routing issues with digital mixers in crowded venues. Ultimately, I'm looking for help finding...a recommendation for the simplest (yet overly adequate) router to purchase so I can feel CONFIDENT that I'm not going to be dealing with drops in crowded venues.

For CONTEXT (if these things matter)...

a) We don't have a sound person. I will be doing this and playing.

b) We don't play on stages that are large--probably 30' across at most--however, using an iPad, I could easily get 100 or more feet away from the stage during "d" (below)

c) I will be letting band members use their own (i.e. up to 5 different) iPhones for personal mixing, and

d) Simultaneously doing all the other things which need to be done to the sound system/mix at an event.

So my UPDATED QUESTION is....I AM LOOKING FOR A ROUTER recommendation such that I can be confident in my system (i.e. have a stable/no drops) solution with the SC Ui24 digital mixer. For now, (I'm out of my league here)...maybe just "any old router" will do--and it's less about the router and more about the LAN option instead? Opinions I've heard are "Use 5G", "Get the most powerful transmitter--to get the greatest range"). But there are so many different routers to choose from. I really don't want to spend more than $150 for this--but will if absolutely necessary.

If you need additional information from me to be able to make a specific recommendation for sure...let me know and I will get back to you. [My question AFTER this one is likely to be related to assigning specific IP addresses, subnets, and getting things smooth for a local area network. Of course, that's IF I'm understanding things to this point. I'm doing my homework on how routing works now--so I should be more informed as we go.]

Thanks in advance!

I see you settled on something.
I was going to show this one that had been mentioned.

LiveTrak L-20 20-channel Digital Mixer/Recorder - Sweetwater

You can use a tablet or not. A lot of hands on knobs to use.

 

[Tosh]

@Alnitak - you probably don't want a router (AKA Internet Gateway), unless you plan to actually connect it to the internet. What you are looking for is a WiFi access point - which also functions a bridge or switch. A Netgear WAC xxx would be an example. It would help to use static IP's for at least the wap and the mixer, which will be connected to each other using an ethernet cable, then WiFi to the client phones using DHCP (if static IP's are too much of a pain for the clients, which they probably would be). You can set all this up inside a rack mount case, neat and clean. It would help to have an app on your phone that can analyze nearby WiFi signals to help you find a frequency that's not congested (I use WiFi Analyzer on Android), and you should definitely not broadcast the SSID of your local network. Use the strongest encryption that the mixer will support. The more characters in the name of your WiFi network, the stronger your encryption key will be.

may the Force be with you

 

[DJ Bebop]

So, this is too late...

7 Best Multitrack Recorders 2023 - Music Industry How To

 

[Alnitak]

@Alnitak - you probably don't want a router (AKA Internet Gateway), unless you plan to actually connect it to the internet. What you are looking for is a WiFi access point - which also functions a bridge or switch. A Netgear WAC xxx would be an example. It would help to use static IP's for at least the wap and the mixer, which will be connected to each other using an ethernet cable, then WiFi to the client phones using DHCP (if static IP's are too much of a pain for the clients, which they probably would be). You can set all this up inside a rack mount case, neat and clean. It would help to have an app on your phone that can analyze nearby WiFi signals to help you find a frequency that's not congested (I use WiFi Analyzer on Android), and you should definitely not broadcast the SSID of your local network. Use the strongest encryption that the mixer will support. The more characters in the name of your WiFi network, the stronger your encryption key will be.

may the Force be with you

Thank you. Three follow up questions...I'll try to keep things clear as possible with one question per paragraph for easy copy/paste responses. There are a variety of questions, so take your pick! Thanks!

You are right--I can't really see needing the internet while at a rehearsal or gig--my understanding is that the software (firmware?) controls for the SCUi24 mixer are already digitally stored inside the physical unit itself. So I do not need to go to the internet to get an app to run it. I simply need to access the mixer (locally) and therefore would not necessarily need a router. That said, every video/paper I've watched/read suggests connecting an "external ROUTER" to the SCUi24's Ethernet port. No-one is saying simply connect a "Wi-Fi Access Point". And routers (the ones I've seen) mostly all have Wi-Fi built in anyways. So...my question here is...would a Router be able to supply a more robust level of "signal drop protection" than a WAP? Because that is what I'm seeking mostly ("signal drop resistance") in setting up an external connection. Would a Router have an advantage in that regard? Or does it simply allow internet access in addition to Wi-Fi?

Now the SCUi24 mixer already has built in Wi-Fi with two antennas mounted on the outside chassis. But in crowded settings, I'm told (like many digital mixers) the Wi-Fi is prone to drops/is less reliable. I'm not really sure how/why simply adding a separate (LAN/External Wi-Fi Access Point fixes that). An external WAP is still just a Wi-Fi connection--but rather than being built in, it's simply on the outside. So maybe the internal Wi-Fi hardware is just super cheap to meet some price point overall. But still, WAP's and Routers are both pretty cheap these days as well. So my question here is...are these external devices really that much better or is it something else that I'm missing? If the external WAP/Router devices really ARE better...is there a unique specification I should I be looking for to avoid signal drops? Combination of specifications? I'm assuming dual band would be one thing to make sure it has...

And yes. I can restrict broadcasting the SSID--(be that the internal Wi-Fi or an external LAN/WAP I set up). If I restrict broadcasting the SSID my question here is...does it mean that a patron who walks into the club, looks for Wi-Fi, simply wont be able to see mine (even though it's available to me--because I'll know its address)? Is that correct?

I'm really appreciative of you (all) taking the time to comment--and provide feedback on my thought process and understanding! I really owe a ton to TB users. So once again, thanks for any clarifying assistance. It's getting a bit geeky--but I'm totally okay with learning new things.

 

[Stylee Mousse]

Damn - makes my glad I learned to record (and still do) from analog mixers... Been wrassling with wifi at home for a week and really not enjoying it!

 

[Tosh]

Thank you. Three follow up questions...I'll try to keep things clear as possible with one question per paragraph for easy copy/paste responses. There are a variety of questions, so take your pick! Thanks!

You are right--I can't really see needing the internet while at a rehearsal or gig--my understanding is that the software (firmware?) controls for the SCUi24 mixer are already digitally stored inside the physical unit itself. So I do not need to go to the internet to get an app to run it. I simply need to access the mixer (locally) and therefore would not necessarily need a router. That said, every video/paper I've watched/read suggests connecting an "external ROUTER" to the SCUi24's Ethernet port. No-one is saying simply connect a "Wi-Fi Access Point". And routers (the ones I've seen) mostly all have Wi-Fi built in anyways. So...my question here is...would a Router be able to supply a more robust level of "signal drop protection" than a WAP? Because that is what I'm seeking mostly ("signal drop resistance") in setting up an external connection. Would a Router have an advantage in that regard? Or does it simply allow internet access in addition to Wi-Fi?

A router is a device that permits traffic across 2 networks. For home users this means connecting the ISP's network to their home network, and routing traffic back and forth. These days home routers often have the router, WiFi access, and ethernet switching all in one device. A Netgear WiFi router doesn't have better performance than a Netgear WiFi access point, just more parts.

Now the SCUi24 mixer already has built in Wi-Fi with two antennas mounted on the outside chassis. But in crowded settings, I'm told (like many digital mixers) the Wi-Fi is prone to drops/is less reliable. I'm not really sure how/why simply adding a separate (LAN/External Wi-Fi Access Point fixes that). An external WAP is still just a Wi-Fi connection--but rather than being built in, it's simply on the outside. So maybe the internal Wi-Fi hardware is just super cheap to meet some price point overall. But still, WAP's and Routers are both pretty cheap these days as well. So my question here is...are these external devices really that much better or is it something else that I'm missing? If the external WAP/Router devices really ARE better...is there a unique specification I should I be looking for to avoid signal drops? Combination of specifications? I'm assuming dual band would be one thing to make sure it has...

I can't speak to the performance of the integrated WiFi of the SCUi24, but in general terms if you are in a situation where you experience WiFi interference, it helps to be able to move the WAP around a bit. When the WAP is in the mixer, you might not be able to do that. You may have seen WiFi in office spaces or reception rooms where the WAP is at least 6ft above the floor - that's so the radio signal has fewer obstacles to impede it. The term "dual band" just refers to having 2 frequency bands to work with - one is 2.4gHz, the other is 5gHz. 5g has higher throughput and is sometimes less congested, but shorter range. 2.4g has greater range, but is more likely to be congested. What really can help avoid data dropouts is something called MiMo (multiple in/multiple out). Not sure if the SCUi24 has that; I haven't read the manual.

And yes. I can restrict broadcasting the SSID--(be that the internal Wi-Fi or an external LAN/WAP I set up). If I restrict broadcasting the SSID my question here is...does it mean that a patron who walks into the club, looks for Wi-Fi, simply wont be able to see mine (even though it's available to me--because I'll know its address)? Is that correct?

Basically, yes that's it. Be sure that every client you want to have connected to the mixer is configured before you turn off the beacon (it is possible to set up a new connection with the beacon disabled, but it's easier to do it with the beacon on).

I'm really appreciative of you (all) taking the time to comment--and provide feedback on my thought process and understanding! I really owe a ton to TB users. So once again, thanks for any clarifying assistance. It's getting a bit geeky--but I'm totally okay with learning new things.

It would be cool to hear about your experience(s) with this tech once you try it out. Geeks like to share ... ;-}

 

[TomB]

Another approach altogether (I see OP’s already sorted) - A young and tech-savvy drummer I know came by the gig and demoed for me some “AI” software he’d just acquired. It took a stereo mix and broke it into 8 discreet tracks with separate instruments. He did it with a recording I’d played on many years ago. The separation was astounding - like sitting at the mixing desk. It was at a noisy club so I couldn’t explore it in depth, but what I heard I liked. I don’t think it was very expensive. It ran on his I-phone. I didn’t catch the name of the software but I could ask him if anyone were interested.

 

[Alnitak]

Another approach altogether (I see OP’s already sorted) - A young and tech-savvy drummer I know came by the gig and demoed for me some “AI” software he’d just acquired. It took a stereo mix and broke it into 8 discreet tracks with separate instruments. He did it with a recording I’d played on many years ago. The separation was astounding - like sitting at the mixing desk. It was at a noisy club so I couldn’t explore it in depth, but what I heard I liked. I don’t think it was very expensive. It ran on his I-phone. I didn’t catch the name of the software but I could ask him if anyone were interested.

That sounds really awesome. Yes, I've ordered the mixer already--so I'll play with this first and see how it goes. But, on a whole other level, I am really interested in AI. It would make sense that AI could be "trained" to be able to sort multiple competing frequencies--one from another and be able to simultaneously multitrack them--after the fact. Among other things!